yes, because I totally want someone back in office, especially considering he's bullcrapped just about every other country.

He put his feet on the office desk. That's no ordinary desk, that was a gift from the queen of England. Also really says something about him too when he gives DVDs about america that don't even play in European VCR players, and an iPod to the queen of England.

Either way, everyone makes everyone sound bad. Cthulu MIGHT even be a better president. Either way, eh, hate political threads in my gaming forums (even if it is in off-topic.)

yes, because I totally want someone back in office, especially considering he's bullcrapped just about every other country.

He put his feet on the office desk. That's no ordinary desk, that was a gift from the queen of England. Also really says something about him too when he gives DVDs about america that don't even play in European VCR players, and an iPod to the queen of England.

Either way, everyone makes everyone sound bad. Cthulu MIGHT even be a better president. Either way, eh, hate political threads in my gaming forums (even if it is in off-topic.)

Not an obama fanboy here, but you might want to compare the overseas poll numbers for the two candidates before offering that rationale.

Now, I don't think what Europe or China thinks about our candidates should influence our decision outside of national security, but seriously, they like him well enough abroad.

I'll be an independent until voting day. I think Ron Paul would have been quite popular in all of the places overseas we've been bombing. ;)

Obama has failed to deliver on his promises. But to quite Sam Kinnison, he wouldn't lie to us two times in a row about something this important.

The basic premise that government spending can fix our economy is flawed. Can Romney now fix the huge mess he would inherit? He will promise to do so that is for sure.

I hold my nose and follow the advice of Einstein. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes. Give the boring guy a chance.

The US can learn from the Roman empire. We are in danger of going into decline just as they did. The main cause of their decline were internal conflicts.

Of course, Romney's picked up all of Bush's old advisors and is promising to double down on his policies. But hey, it only makes sense to drop the guy who hasn't fixed things as fast as we hoped and go back to the policies that broke everything in the first place.

What I find amazing is that they like him in some of the middle east countries despite his use of unmanned drones that (even when they his their intended target) cause tremendous collateral death and destruction, this is my biggest complaint about the Obama administration, but some people in the middle east can look past this.

Also I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if by simply being elected Obama caused the Arab Spring. People saw that in America democracy meant that no matter your ethnicity, wealth, or family you could rise to the highest office in the land and I'm thinking that they wanted a bit of that freedom for themselves.

As a Canadian I don't care for Romney, it's not that I don't like his views, I agreed with him a lot in the 2008 campaign, it's more that I don't like what his party has become. Why does the Republican party want to be exclusively for rich evangelical male gun nuts? Could they not have a voice of opposition that includes atheists, homosexuals, intellectuals, feminists, gun control advocates, and maybe more then a dozen minorities? It's true that when you vote Republican you usually know what you're getting but diversity of opinion is what makes a good democracy in my mind and finding consensus can be harder but it often creates a far more balanced solution.

What I find amazing is that they like him in some of the middle east countries despite his use of unmanned drones that (even when they his their intended target) cause tremendous collateral death and destruction, this is my biggest complaint about the Obama administration, but some people in the middle east can look past this.

I never understood the complaint about drones. Are targetted drone bombs/machinegun fire somehow worse than the selfguided missles we were using prior? Why should we risk troops when we have roughly the same amount of collateral damage? Why shouldn't we use the most cost effective and controlled weapons in our arsenal when it reduces the amount of risk our own troops are in?

The basic premise that government spending can fix our economy is flawed.

The fastest way to cut government spending is to reduce government jobs.

Cutting Medicare, means doctors get less business.
Cutting defense spending, means contractors out of work and reducing the size of our armed forces (more people out of work).
Cutting VA benefits means fewer people managing the VA.
and so on.

Please explain to me how increasing unemployment will improve the economy in the short term. I REALLY want to know how this works.

Cutting government spending is a long term goal, not a short term goal. In the short term it will mean reduced demand in the economy overall.

From 1950 to 1963, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. There were a lot of exclusions at the time, but we were still paying off WW2 and giving lots of money to Europe as well. We also saw a lot of growth. We built the interstate system, fought another war, started the space program, etc. There were some recessions during that period, but overall it was a period of growth. The tax rate pretty much had nothing to do with it.

If we want the economy to grow, that means spending more money on infrastructure and finding hugely ambitious projects that encourage innovation in all sectors of the economy.

What I find amazing is that they like him in some of the middle east countries despite his use of unmanned drones that (even when they his their intended target) cause tremendous collateral death and destruction, this is my biggest complaint about the Obama administration, but some people in the middle east can look past this.

Also I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if by simply being elected Obama caused the Arab Spring. People saw that in America democracy meant that no matter your ethnicity, wealth, or family you could rise to the highest office in the land and I'm thinking that they wanted a bit of that freedom for themselves.

As a Canadian I don't care for Romney, it's not that I don't like his views, I agreed with him a lot in the 2008 campaign, it's more that I don't like what his party has become. Why does the Republican party want to be exclusively for rich evangelical male gun nuts? Could they not have a voice of opposition that includes atheists, homosexuals, intellectuals, feminists, gun control advocates, and maybe more then a dozen minorities? It's true that when you vote Republican you usually know what you're getting but diversity of opinion is what makes a good democracy in my mind and finding consensus can be harder but it often creates a far more balanced solution.

Some in the party see the problem, but in the short term, they have to double-down on the crazy to win the base, which fires the base up but shrinks it. They can't do what you suggest because the base is against "atheists, homosexuals, intellectuals, feminists, gun control advocates, and ... minorities"

The basic premise that government spending can fix our economy is flawed.

The fastest way to cut government spending is to reduce government jobs.

Cutting Medicare, means doctors get less business.
Cutting defense spending, means contractors out of work and reducing the size of our armed forces (more people out of work).
Cutting VA benefits means fewer people managing the VA.
and so on.

Please explain to me how increasing unemployment will improve the economy in the short term. I REALLY want to know how this works.

As I'm sure you know, we have cut government employment, mostly on the state and local level. Without the public sector job losses of this recession, unemployment would be more than a point lower.

What I find amazing is that they like him in some of the middle east countries despite his use of unmanned drones that (even when they his their intended target) cause tremendous collateral death and destruction, this is my biggest complaint about the Obama administration, but some people in the middle east can look past this.

I never understood the complaint about drones. Are targetted drone bombs/machinegun fire somehow worse than the selfguided missles we were using prior? Why should we risk troops when we have roughly the same amount of collateral damage? Why shouldn't we use the most cost effective and controlled weapons in our arsenal when it reduces the amount of risk our own troops are in?

There are a couple of problems. One, you're seldom targeting military installations, often the target is inside a residential area and the collateral I spoke of earlier often means innocent civilians getting killed. Two, you still need people on the ground, though usually they're in non combat roles, and often you're relying on informants to help you select your targets. You just have to hope that the person that sells you information about the target doesn't have some sort of vendetta with someone else and you are indeed blowing up the right person. Three, when you're using drones to blow up suspected terrorists you're not exactly giving anyone a fair trial. I'm sure many of the targets are dangerous individuals that probably need to be taken out but in many countries like Afghanistan tribal warfare is bigger then any war against the US. Some of these groups are targeting the US because they're supporting who they see as the enemy not because they see the US as the enemy. Some of these people where just born in the wrong village. Some of these folks are being tagged as enemies by our Afghan "allies" and while I am sure military intelligence does do due diligence it's not exactly on the same level as you would see in a court case, and without a doubt much of the evidence used to sentence someone to death is very one sided or even from one source.

What I find amazing is that they like him in some of the middle east countries despite his use of unmanned drones that (even when they his their intended target) cause tremendous collateral death and destruction, this is my biggest complaint about the Obama administration, but some people in the middle east can look past this.

I never understood the complaint about drones. Are targetted drone bombs/machinegun fire somehow worse than the selfguided missles we were using prior? Why should we risk troops when we have roughly the same amount of collateral damage? Why shouldn't we use the most cost effective and controlled weapons in our arsenal when it reduces the amount of risk our own troops are in?

There are a couple of problems. One, you're seldom targeting military installations, often the target is inside a residential area and the collateral I spoke of earlier often means innocent civilians getting killed. Two, you still need people on the ground, though usually they're in non combat roles, and often you're relying on informants to help you select your targets. You just have to hope that the person that sells you information about the target doesn't have some sort of vendetta with someone else and you are indeed blowing up the right person. Three, when you're using drones to blow up suspected terrorists you're not exactly giving anyone a fair trial. I'm sure many of the targets are dangerous individuals that probably need to be taken out but in many countries like Afghanistan tribal warfare is bigger then any war against the US. Some of these groups are targeting the US because they're supporting who they see as the enemy not because they see the US as the enemy. Some of these people where just born in the wrong village. Some of these folks are being tagged as enemies by our Afghan "allies" and while I am sure military intelligence does do due diligence it's not exactly on the same level as you would see in a court case, and without a doubt much...

Right, so instead of using ground based missiles, or manned bombers, like we did in the 90s, or surgical strike teams, putting our troops in danger, increasing risk, and decreasing success rate, we use cheaper unmanned drones that have increased accuracy. The policies are nothing new. Just the weapons. I understand the problems with the policies. The only new thing is that we have a new toy though, and the toy shouldn't get the blame for the policies it is used to support.

When you mature a little you'll find out that no social issue trumps having a job and warm bed to sleep in regardless of your sexual preference. Rent/mortgage money trumps social issues, unless you dont mind living on the streets.

Both sides are bought and paid for by the same companies (such as Goldman Sachs).

Both sides are going to do the exact same s#*@. The republicans do it with a dickish smirk, while the democrats do it with an "I feel your pain" look. Your going to get screwed either way, does it really matter if it is red or blue?

First, their ecconomic polies, while similar, are not the same.

Second, the parties are completely different on social issues. I care more about descrimination against my friends in the law than I do about the economy. And that is if I even thought the Republicans had the better ecconomic plan, which I don't.

When you mature a little you'll find out that no social issue trumps having a job and some money to spend regardless of your sexual preference. Rent/mortgage money trumps social issues, unless you dont mind living on the streets.

So social issues like ENDA (prohibiting employment discrimination against homosexuals) or the end of DADT are trumped by getting a job? Being fired for your sexual orientation is less important than having a job? Does that even make sense?

What about getting on your partner's health insurance? Not being able to treat a medical condition can interfere with getting a job.
And that's just gay social issues.

How about being paid less because you're female? That's a social issue that Democrats have tried to address that cuts into the rent/mortgage money.

That's all ignoring the "if I even thought the Republicans had the better ecconomic plan, which I don't" part of the comment. Republicans haven't exactly been great for job growth over the last few decades.

When you mature a little you'll find out that no social issue trumps having a job and warm bed to sleep in regardless of your sexual preference. Rent/mortgage money trumps social issues, unless you dont mind living on the streets.

You messed up the quotes. Looks like you deleted what you were responding to of mine.

I can't disagree with you more. When our countries stance towards gay people causes they to have rediculous suicide rates and groups are trying to re-enact Jim Crow laws, the trivial amount of ecconomic stability difference between the 2 candidates is laughable. And when 1 of the candidates wants to gut support structures for people who are in risk of going on the streets, the difference becomes more stark.

edit: and I love how you assumed my age, despite knowing nothing of me.

The basic premise that government spending can fix our economy is flawed.

The fastest way to cut government spending is to reduce government jobs.

Cutting Medicare, means doctors get less business.
Cutting defense spending, means contractors out of work and reducing the size of our armed forces (more people out of work).
Cutting VA benefits means fewer people managing the VA.
and so on.

Please explain to me how increasing unemployment will improve the economy in the short term. I REALLY want to know how this works.

Cutting government spending is a long term goal, not a short term goal. In the short term it will mean reduced demand in the economy overall.

From 1950 to 1963, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. There were a lot of exclusions at the time, but we were still paying off WW2 and giving lots of money to Europe as well. We also saw a lot of growth. We built the interstate system, fought another war, started the space program, etc. There were some recessions during that period, but overall it was a period of growth. The tax rate pretty much had nothing to do with it.

If we want the economy to grow, that means spending more money on infrastructure and finding hugely ambitious projects that encourage innovation in all sectors of the economy.

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

When you mature a little you'll find out that no social issue trumps having a job and warm bed to sleep in regardless of your sexual preference. Rent/mortgage money trumps social issues, unless you dont mind living on the streets.

You messed up the quotes. Looks like you deleted what you were responding to of mine.

I can't disagree with you more. When our countries stance towards gay people causes they to have rediculous suicide rates and groups are trying to re-enact Jim Crow laws, the trivial amount of ecconomic stability difference between the 2 candidates is laughable. And when 1 of the candidates wants to gut support structures for people who are in risk of going on the streets, the difference becomes more stark.

edit: and I love how you assumed my age, despite knowing nothing of me.

Jim Crow laws? Got any proof?

And as far as support structures, the government is 1.6 trillion dollars over budget this year alone, so cuts have to be made in spending or else the government will eventually collapse.

Imagine how high suicide rates would be if the government went bankrupt? Likely tens of thousands due to hunger, hopelessness, lack of services, and unemployment.

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

The government can borrow money at its unprecedented low interest rates and spend it on things that will offer greater return on investment in the future. Our transportation system recently recieved a D rating, with much of it being decades old and in desprate need of repair. There are thousands of construction jobs that we could create with borrowed money to do things we need. Every dollar spent by the government on construction has returns almost 2 fold in long term growth in taxes. Hell, wellfare returns something like 1.5% of that spent because it gets circulating in the economy.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more. Because the dollars they spend on the new employee do not count for the taxes, so if they hire enough new people to do jobs, they can grow and potentially bring themselves down into a lower tax bracket - allowing them to keep a greater percentage and practically break even. It forces companies to invest in themselves. Companies would rather give their employees raises or hire new people then give more to the government because it puts them at an advantage in the future.

When you mature a little you'll find out that no social issue trumps having a job and warm bed to sleep in regardless of your sexual preference. Rent/mortgage money trumps social issues, unless you dont mind living on the streets.

You messed up the quotes. Looks like you deleted what you were responding to of mine.

I can't disagree with you more. When our countries stance towards gay people causes they to have rediculous suicide rates and groups are trying to re-enact Jim Crow laws, the trivial amount of ecconomic stability difference between the 2 candidates is laughable. And when 1 of the candidates wants to gut support structures for people who are in risk of going on the streets, the difference becomes more stark.

edit: and I love how you assumed my age, despite knowing nothing of me.

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Businesses would collapse en masse.

Too easy. Once you get so far in debt, creditors stop loaning you money because you are increasingly unlikely to pay them back. No one loans money to a government that can't pay them back. So your idea of unlimited government borrowing is flat out wrong. Just ask Greece. At least the EU can bailout Greece because its so small; there is not enough money on this earth to bail out the US if it goes bankrupt.

So if the government is so in debt and can't borrow anymore money, then collapse is not a gloom and doom scenario, its an actual reality.

Now if you cant borrow money, you can always print it, but then those dollars you print become worth even less, so eventually daily items like milk cost $20 bucks a gallon and people's retirement savings become completely worthless.

Right, so instead of using ground based missiles, or manned bombers, like we did in the 90s, or surgical strike teams, putting our troops in danger, increasing risk, and decreasing success rate, we use cheaper unmanned drones that have increased accuracy. The policies are nothing new. Just the weapons. I understand the problems with the policies. The only new thing is that we have a new toy though, and the toy shouldn't get the blame for the policies it is used to support.

The problem isn't the technology the problem is that you're not using this technology on military targets. The problem with blowing up civilians is that they're not wearing uniforms, sure they might be the enemy, but it's also possible that they were just next door neighbors. The terrible thing about this "enemy combatant" thing is you can pretty much blow up anyone you want and never need to justify it in a court of law. If the Republicans were doing this the Democrats would be crying foul.

Right, so instead of using ground based missiles, or manned bombers, like we did in the 90s, or surgical strike teams, putting our troops in danger, increasing risk, and decreasing success rate, we use cheaper unmanned drones that have increased accuracy. The policies are nothing new. Just the weapons. I understand the problems with the policies. The only new thing is that we have a new toy though, and the toy shouldn't get the blame for the policies it is used to support.

The problem isn't the technology the problem is that you're not using this technology on military targets. The problem with blowing up civilians is that they're not wearing uniforms, sure they might be the enemy, but it's also possible that they were just next door neighbors. The terrible thing about this "enemy combatant" thing is you can pretty much blow up anyone you want and never need to justify it in a court of law. If the Republicans were doing this the Democrats would be crying foul.

I agree with you entirely on the policies. I just don't understand why you attribute these to the tools used, since if we didn't have unmanned drones, we would just be using a different tool.

Its simple. The government has no choice but to cut because it is so overbudget (1.6 trillion this year alone). You are correct when you say that will increase unemployment, but what you fail to consider is that if the government goes bankrupt (which is where its heading), even more people lose their job. So its kind of like cutting off a limb to save the patient. Its ugly and nasty, but necessary to save lives. Do thousands suffer? Yes. Does it save millions of others? Yes.

And almost no one paid the 91% rate you mentioned above. If you ever tried to raise taxes that high on the rich, they'd simply move their business/home overseas to countries with lower tax rates and all the people they employ in the US would be out of work.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

And actually, when people only get to keep 9 cents on the dollar they hire more. A lot more.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Businesses would collapse en masse.

Too easy. Once you get so far in debt, creditors stop loaning you money because you are increasingly unlikely to pay them back. No one loans money to a government that can't pay them back. So your idea of unlimited government borrowing is flat out wrong. Just ask Greece. At least the EU can bailout Greece because its so small; there is not enough money on this earth to bail out the US if it goes bankrupt.

So if the government is so in debt and can't borrow anymore money, then collapse is not a gloom and doom scenario, its an actual reality.

Now if you cant borrow money, you can always print it, but then those dollars you print become worth even less, so eventually daily items like milk cost $20 bucks a gallon...

Yes, and right now the world sees the US currency as a safe place to store their money. That is why the government can borrow money at ridiculously low rates. So we should be using these low rates to increase spending, since increased spending will help get us out of the recession and help us fix problems that desperately need attention.

Why would anyone invest in anything if they only got to keep 9 cents on every dollar of profit? You're not thinking rationally and have absolutely no clue about the basic principals of economics.

Businesses would collapse en masse.

Because every dollar they spend is one less they are taxed on, and the less they are taxed on, the less tax they have to pay. (Lower tax brackets.)

yes, but if u dont keep any of your profits it not worth it. Even if the government were to wave all taxes on investments in business expansion, there's still a risk associated with expansion. For instance, I buy 100 new trucks to deliver shoes for my shoe making company. Now, I still need to pay for those trucks, and I have to use money I made with profit or take out a loan to pay for them. If the cost, personnel, and maintenance of the trucks cost outweigh the potential profit I won't make the expansion, especially if the risk for failure is greater than the reward.

And according to your theory, since the government is going to take 91 cents of every profit dollar I make it becomes far too risky to make big investments because the payoff is too small versus the potential risk of failure on my investment. If I succeed I only get 9% profit and if I fail then I go out of business. Any business owner with half a brain will tell you that the risk is not worth the reward in that scenario.

9% possible profit is too small a margin to take risks on costly investment. Especially without a guaruntee of success. Risk vs Reward. Seriously, you guys need to take a basic macro or micro economics class.

9% possible profit is too small a margin to take risks on costly investment. Especially without a guaruntee of success. Risk vs Reward. Seriously, you guys need to take a basic macro or micro economics class.

Except you're ignoring that you won't be getting 9% of your profits. You'll be getting a higher percent because you knocked yourself into a lower tax bracket. You spend money to earn more money.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

I'm sorry but that is one of the most preposterous things I have read on the internet in a long time! Here is a little secret: People don't turn down money. Would you? They already have 10 times what they "need" by the time they get close to the 91% rate. They also probably don't actually do "work", they accumulate assets. If they can get more money, they are going to do it. It's not like it takes a lot of extra "work" to make another 100,000 over the millions you already make. If you can make an extra 1%, your going to do it. The idea that the super rich work REALLY hard, and it just wouldn't be worth the extra effort if they paid more taxes is a sad joke.

PS The super rich wound not just move elsewhere or something because they would lose access to the wealthiest market in the world. You make millions here, you pay taxes here. You get caught hiding your assets in the Cayman Islands, it gets seized. Problem solved.

9% possible profit is too small a margin to take risks on costly investment. Especially without a guaruntee of success. Risk vs Reward. Seriously, you guys need to take a basic macro or micro economics class.

Except you're ignoring that you won't be getting 9% of your profits. You'll be getting a higher percent because you knocked yourself into a lower tax bracket. You spend money to earn more money.

Wow, because an 85% tax rate makes investment so much more likley than 91%. Once again, risk versus reward.

The other problem with your solution is that it mimics the mistakes of our current tax system. You are willng to start offering loopholes to let businesses get out of paying the standard corporate rate.

If you want a system that works, lower the tax rates but eliminate the tax loopholes. If you eliminate tax loop holes you dont have lobbyists trying to buy off congressman to introduce laws that offer their business custom designed loopholes. If you tax at a flate rate with no possibility of loopholes, there's no longer an incentive to buy people off.

If you go with this idea that the government can give business incentives and tax breaks, then you are just supporting crony capitalism that is extremely vulnerable to corruption. Both parties have embraced that system for th elast 60 years because that's how they pay off their corporate donors; tax breaks.

Every busines pays the same rate; no exceptions and no loopholes. Can't get any fairer than that.

While the US currently has the highest corporate tax rate, the number of exemptions and loopholes nullify those high tax rates, which typically ends up with businesses paying ridiculously low tax rates. By lowering the rates but eliminating the loopholes, the government ends up actually getting more revenue and businesses aren't adversely affected.

9% possible profit is too small a margin to take risks on costly investment. Especially without a guaruntee of success. Risk vs Reward. Seriously, you guys need to take a basic macro or micro economics class.

Except you're ignoring that you won't be getting 9% of your profits. You'll be getting a higher percent because you knocked yourself into a lower tax bracket. You spend money to earn more money.

Right, you leave the money in the business, grow the business, become richer that way, rather than take money out as profit, pay the high marginal rate on it and then gamble with it on the stock market or invest in buying Congressmen. Remember, for the top marginal rates, we were only talking a handful of the very richest people. Today, there's little incentive not to take your money out and try for high returns in exotic derivative bubbles.

That's all academic though. No one is even hinting at 90% rates. The most that's been proposed is a return to the Clinton era rates. A few extra percent (and more import a bigger jump in the capital gains rate) will bring in a decent chunk of money with minimal effect.
We've been cutting taxes on the top end for decades now, with no evidence that it works as promised and a good deal that it doesn't.

I agree with you entirely on the policies. I just don't understand why you attribute these to the tools used, since if we didn't have unmanned drones, we would just be using a different tool.

My problem isn't with the tool. If the US were using those drones to take out Libyan military targets (which I think they did but I don't have the time to check) then I wouldn't complain about their use at all. My problem is that they're being used against civilian targets and more often then not we hear stories about weddings being targeted because the locals love to shoot guns in the air. The biggest problem is that we only hear about such instances because the collateral includes women and children. But if there are only men amongst the dead, successful or not, they're all called enemy combatants. I believe this policy didn't start with Obama but the fact that he allows it to continue is sad and the fact that he's authorized more of these drone strikes says that he's compliant.

I don't want US or Canadian or NATO or UN troops put in danger, and yes I want to see terrorists brought to justice, but there has to be a better policy for using lethal force against civilian targets. It seems right now the US president is judge and jury and it seems to me that even if the US president is a likeable guy like Obama that is too much power. I don't even know if they have a policy on when and where a target can be taken out. Suppose they were eating at a crowded restaurant would that get a green light? I know drones have been used to target residential buildings in Iraq, one tape even showed civilians walking around in front, and the disgusting thing was the operator of the drone didn't even wait for the local to walk past the building before blowing it to kingdom come.

I don't blame Obama for using drones but I don't like how they're used.

Also, despite the rhetoric, the single biggest reason we've got a huge deficit is that tax revenue is at historically low levels as a percentage of GDP.

The next is the recession itself, which both cuts revenue and boosts demand for services.

Third is the cost of the wars. Higher if you count the ridiculous amount of money we spend on the military as a whole. If we needed to cut spending, that's where we should cut, not social spending. Not teachers and fire fighters and police.

Wow, because an 85% tax rate makes investment so much more likley than 91%. Once again, risk versus reward.

Do the math on 85% of 1 billion versus 91% of it. And remember that big business makes much higher profits than that.

I will agree with you that 91% tax rates are not the answer, but disagree that higher tax rates aren't either.

91% is pretty much a strawman anyway. Most super rich probably pay something closer to 5-10% thanks to various tax tricks and shelters. Companies like Microsoft and GE often pay an income tax rate of 0%.

Make the tax code a 10 page document. Close the loopholes. Make offshore accounts illegal. End unneeded subsidies.

And no one is going to expand a business and hire new workers if they only get to keep 9 cents of every dollar they make.

I'm sorry but that is one of the most preposterous things I have read on the internet in a long time! Here is a little secret: People don't turn down money. Would you? They already have 10 times what they "need" by the time they get close to the 91% rate. They also probably don't actually do "work", they accumulate assets. If they can get more money, they are going to do it. It's not like it takes a lot of extra "work" to make another 100,000 over the millions you already make. If you can make an extra 1%, your going to do it. The idea that the super rich work REALLY hard, and it just wouldn't be worth the extra effort if they paid more taxes is a sad joke.

PS The super rich wound not just move elsewhere or something because they would lose access to the wealthiest market in the world. You make millions here, you pay taxes here. You get caught hiding your assets in the Cayman Islands, it gets seized. Problem solved.

I'll make it simple for you to understand. Lets say you and I make a bet on a coin flip. If I win, you pay me $100 dollars. If you win, I pay you $9. Sounds good?

Of course not, because the risk for you losing ($100) is not equal to the reward ($9). Therere, it is not worth for you to make the bet because you have no guarantee of winning.

That is how business investment choices are made. That $9 you speak of is not a sure thing you will get.

The rich can move many places. Remember, this is a global market place. Once you have millions or billions, all you have to do is renouce citizenship and you get out of most taxes. If you dont believe me, check out these 2 recent examples of rich leaving the country to escape millions in federal income taxes:

This one is a democrat campaign donor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170969/Wealthy-socialite-Denise-Ri ch-renounces-U-S-citizenship--saving-tens-millions-dollars-taxes.html

The rich move every day to escape taxes. Florida and Texas have no state income tax and they have wildly expanding populations. STate income tax can be from 10-20 % of your income per year. If you have millions, 20% is a lot money to give away. California is losing population because they have the highest taxes in the nation. People don't move there as much because they dont want to pay high taxes. That's how the game works.

You're cherry picking examples. Greece, Italy, and Spain have pretty high tax rates and are all on the verge of financial collapse.

The difference is efficency of their government, not the rate at which they tax.

Well I have heard it said that Greece has more civil servants then Canada and they have doctors there declaring that they made less then 20 000 a year. I've also heard people claim that they despite all those civil servants they don't have an IRS equivalent so they just have to trust that everyone is paying the right amount.

Without a doubt government efficiency is part of it but is it the only factor? America seemed to be quite successful in the 90s with higher taxes. Sure two wars and a financial meltdown that gutted that prosperity but taxes are the main way governments make income, how does cutting taxes stimulate growth if you're also cutting spending. Do you really think new jobs will snatch up all those out of work civil servants? If the average tax payer is getting less from their government and paying the same how is that not a tax increase on the working class?

The rich move every day to escape taxes. Florida and Texas have no state income tax and they have wildly expanding populations. STate income tax can be from 10-20 % of your income per year. If you have millions, 20% is a lot money to give away. California is losing population because they have the highest taxes in the nation. People don't move there as much because they dont want to pay high taxes. That's how the game works.

AFAICT, no state has a 20% income tax. Hawaii is the highest I know of at an 11% top marginal rate. California is 10% on income over a million.

I'll make it simple for you to understand. Lets say you and I make a bet on a coin flip. If I win, you pay me $100 dollars. If you win, I pay you $9. Sounds good?

Of course not, because the risk for you losing ($100) is not equal to the reward ($9). Therere, it is not worth for you to make the bet because you have no guarantee of winning.

Except that's not how it usually works.

It's more like: You have $100 in, as yet untaxed, business income. You are mind-boggling rich, so if you took that $100 as personal income, you'd only get $9 to spend towards another lear jet or to gamble with. If you use it expand the business, then it isn't profit and you get to spend the whole $100 to grow your business.
You're really only spending a potential $9 dollars to get $100 worth of business improvements. That means even if your business might not give you quite the same rate of return your hedge fund manager is promising you, you're starting with a much larger sum.

It's like putting money, untaxed in the limited choices in your 401K, rather than paying tax on it, then trying for a better return on the more open stock market. The higher your tax rate, the better return you'd need to get to make that deal worth while.

Without a doubt government efficiency is part of it but is it the only factor? America seemed to be quite successful in the 90s with higher taxes. Sure two wars and a financial meltdown that gutted that prosperity but taxes are the main way governments make income, how does cutting taxes stimulate growth if you're also cutting spending. Do you really think new jobs will snatch up all those out of work civil servants? If the average tax payer is getting less from their government and paying the same how is that not a tax increase on the working class?